An article appeared in the New York Times today which reported on a study done to determine the relative effectiveness of Child Protective Services investigating a home where abuse and/or maltreatment of children is suspected. The article can be read here. The text of the study itself can be seen here. In the study, the evaluators compared several hundred families who had been investigated against families who had not been investigated. Their determination was all too sobering, if not utterly depressing. In essence, the study found that the intervention of Child Protective Services had virtually no beneficial effect on these families.
Does the finding of this study serve to undermine the entire purpose of Child Protective Services? Should we as a society simply give up trying to help families where children are being abused? Obviously, the answer is a resounding no. Moreover, as a practititioner in New York's Family Court for many years, I find the conclusion of this study perplexing, to say the least. To be sure, there are families beyond the help of anyone. Ultimately, these families are headed by parents whose interpersonal lives are riddled with problems across a wide spectrum including poverty, drug abuse, prior histories of abuse themselves (both as perpetrators and victims), mental illness and so on. Sometimes, there is simply too much for any agency to correct. Still, that is not to suggest that the situation is hopeless.
If the reality of a particular family cannot be sufficiently adjusted to permit a child to remain in the home safely, then there are alternatives, specifically, adoption. Removing a child permanently and placing the child with a new family is clearly an option of last resort. But it is a viable option nonetheless. Similarly, long term placement (via adoption or an order of custody) may serve to preserve the safety of the child without necessarily severing the tie to the biological parents for good. I have represented countless parents and children who have gone on to have meaningful and fulfilling relationships with each other long after the legal ties that bind them have been severed.
So while it may not always be possible to rid an entire family of the various afflictions that confront it, it is still very possible to rescue a child from having to endure the full brunt of those afflictions. To the extent that it remains possible to do that, Child Protective Services will always serve a vital role.
Monday, October 11, 2010
The Chorus Against Juvenile Detention Facilities Is Getting Louder
In yesterday's New York Times, an editorial lambasting the pathetic state of New York's juvenile detention facilities makes a convincing argument for the utter ineffectiveness of these facilities. The full article can be read here. More and more, people are coming to realize that separating children from their families is, more often than not, a grossly ill-conceived manner to deal with the problems posed by juvenile delinquency. Treatment (in its many forms), community based programs and the love and support of friends, families and people in the community with a vested interest in how a young person turns out are almost always offer a better solution for a troubled child. And as stated in a previous post (10/6/10), the best way to prevent your child from falling victim to these deplorable facilities is to prepare and find appropriate resources in the community yourself and with the help of an attorney experienced in handling cases involving children adjudicated to be juvenile delinquents.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Another Child Slips Through the Cracks. . .And Dies
The New York Times ran a story yesterday of the tragic fate of 4 year old girl, Marchella Price, whose emaciated and bruised body was found dead on September 2nd. The article can be seen in its entirety here. At the time of her death, Marchella weighed a mere 18 pounds. She had been routinely tied to her bed by her mother in order to prevent her from getting out of bed to make something to eat, ostensibly to prevent her from making a mess. The mother is now facing criminal charges.
But the real story here is how did a family that was supposedly being monitored by the Administration for Children's Services (A.C.S.) slip through the cracks like this? It's a complicated story. And rather than joining the ranks of those who are screaming for blood at A.C.S., it might be helpful to understand that the caseworkers at A.C.S. have enormously challenging jobs. They handle hundreds of cases a year and are responsible for many, many families. Put simply, the caseworkers are grossly overworked. Also, keep in mind that it is the goal of both A.C.S. and the Family Court to reunite families whenever possible, not allow children to languish in foster care indefinitely. Enough studies have been done to demonstrate that extended stays in foster care have long term adverse and traumatic effects on children who remain in foster care. Click here if you're interested in seeing one study cataloguing what some of those effects are.
In this particular case the mother had tested positive for drugs when Marchella was born. The child had been returned home, presumably because the mother was compliant with her treatment plan at some point. A.C.S. (in this case through a contract agency) was supposed to continue to monitor the family after the return of the child to make sure they were doing okay. Clearly, they did not. But I cannot help but wonder why no report was called into the police or A.C.S. by neighbors, friends, other family members, strangers, day care providers (if they were any) or other people who may have encountered this family. After all, an 18 pound 4 year old is quite obviously, even to a lay person, suffering. So before we race to condemn A.C.S. we should ask ourselves, what can we do in similar circumstances when we suspect the abuse or maltreatment of a child.
The easiest thing is to call the police, 311 (in N.Y.C.) or A.C.S. directly. These calls can and often do remain (when the reporter requests anonymity) anonymous and the city agencies are nonetheless obligated to investigate this calls. Many, many children have been spared needless suffering as a result of the intervention of a concerned neighbor or friend.
But the real story here is how did a family that was supposedly being monitored by the Administration for Children's Services (A.C.S.) slip through the cracks like this? It's a complicated story. And rather than joining the ranks of those who are screaming for blood at A.C.S., it might be helpful to understand that the caseworkers at A.C.S. have enormously challenging jobs. They handle hundreds of cases a year and are responsible for many, many families. Put simply, the caseworkers are grossly overworked. Also, keep in mind that it is the goal of both A.C.S. and the Family Court to reunite families whenever possible, not allow children to languish in foster care indefinitely. Enough studies have been done to demonstrate that extended stays in foster care have long term adverse and traumatic effects on children who remain in foster care. Click here if you're interested in seeing one study cataloguing what some of those effects are.
In this particular case the mother had tested positive for drugs when Marchella was born. The child had been returned home, presumably because the mother was compliant with her treatment plan at some point. A.C.S. (in this case through a contract agency) was supposed to continue to monitor the family after the return of the child to make sure they were doing okay. Clearly, they did not. But I cannot help but wonder why no report was called into the police or A.C.S. by neighbors, friends, other family members, strangers, day care providers (if they were any) or other people who may have encountered this family. After all, an 18 pound 4 year old is quite obviously, even to a lay person, suffering. So before we race to condemn A.C.S. we should ask ourselves, what can we do in similar circumstances when we suspect the abuse or maltreatment of a child.
The easiest thing is to call the police, 311 (in N.Y.C.) or A.C.S. directly. These calls can and often do remain (when the reporter requests anonymity) anonymous and the city agencies are nonetheless obligated to investigate this calls. Many, many children have been spared needless suffering as a result of the intervention of a concerned neighbor or friend.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
The Comparative Injustice of the Juvenile Justice System
Over the weekend, the New York Daily News posted an article about a girl who'd been raped who was also facing a minor juvenile delinquency charge herself in Manhattan Family Court. The complete article can be read here. In essence, it involves a young woman, 15 years old, named Ashley, who was in court for filing a false police report. Before she was scheduled to appear in court, she was raped in the courthouse by a counselor who was supposed to escort her. That day she was sentenced to 12 months detention while her assailant, who later pleaded guilty in criminal court, received 12 months probation.
Without going further into the details of this apparent miscarriage of justice, it is enough to say that the discrepancies between the sentences of these two people is not unusual. Criminal Court deals with adult criminals whereas Family Court deals with children who commit crimes and are under the age of 16 when they commit the crimes. When juveniles are found guilty of committing crimes they are deemed to be juvenile delinquents and their cases are scheduled for disposition (sentencing).
However, because of their age, juveniles are supposed to be sentenced in the least restrictive alternative to meet the safety requirements of the community and the needs of the juvenile. In other words, punishment for the sake of punishment is not supposed to be the overriding goal. In theory, the Family Court judges charged with sentencing juveniles are supposed to be sensitive to the fact that depriving a child of his or her liberty is an option of absolute last resort. Unfortunately, that is often not the case.
It is therefore incumbent upon the juvenile, his parents and counsel to offer viable alternatives to detention that meet the needs of the community and the child. And again, like in every other case, this involves preparation and research. Every community has therapeutic centers and mental health professionals that offer counseling and/or therapy. Most communities have youth centers where children can seek educational assistance, play sports, obtain part-time employment and, most importantly, use their time productively and avoid tempting situations that can get them in further trouble. If drug treatment is needed, such facilities can be found almost everywhere. The probation department offers a variety of services for youths facing detention as do a significant number of community organizations. Serious engagement in these types of services can be the difference between a judge placing a child in detention and forcing those services upon a child and permitting the child to remain in the community where they are comfortable and more likely to succeed and be happy.
As a society, we often read articles about serious criminals who get a proverbial slap on the wrist and we scratch our heads and wonder how it happened. Suffice to say, the criminal courts are places that deal with the competing goals of safeguarding the community and preventing the overcrowding of prisons. As a result, many who should be in jail are not. In the Family Court environment, it is my personal view, that children should not be in detention whenever possible. Whether they end up there or not will depend in significant part on you, your child and your attorney's preparation to offer acceptable alternatives.
Without going further into the details of this apparent miscarriage of justice, it is enough to say that the discrepancies between the sentences of these two people is not unusual. Criminal Court deals with adult criminals whereas Family Court deals with children who commit crimes and are under the age of 16 when they commit the crimes. When juveniles are found guilty of committing crimes they are deemed to be juvenile delinquents and their cases are scheduled for disposition (sentencing).
However, because of their age, juveniles are supposed to be sentenced in the least restrictive alternative to meet the safety requirements of the community and the needs of the juvenile. In other words, punishment for the sake of punishment is not supposed to be the overriding goal. In theory, the Family Court judges charged with sentencing juveniles are supposed to be sensitive to the fact that depriving a child of his or her liberty is an option of absolute last resort. Unfortunately, that is often not the case.
It is therefore incumbent upon the juvenile, his parents and counsel to offer viable alternatives to detention that meet the needs of the community and the child. And again, like in every other case, this involves preparation and research. Every community has therapeutic centers and mental health professionals that offer counseling and/or therapy. Most communities have youth centers where children can seek educational assistance, play sports, obtain part-time employment and, most importantly, use their time productively and avoid tempting situations that can get them in further trouble. If drug treatment is needed, such facilities can be found almost everywhere. The probation department offers a variety of services for youths facing detention as do a significant number of community organizations. Serious engagement in these types of services can be the difference between a judge placing a child in detention and forcing those services upon a child and permitting the child to remain in the community where they are comfortable and more likely to succeed and be happy.
As a society, we often read articles about serious criminals who get a proverbial slap on the wrist and we scratch our heads and wonder how it happened. Suffice to say, the criminal courts are places that deal with the competing goals of safeguarding the community and preventing the overcrowding of prisons. As a result, many who should be in jail are not. In the Family Court environment, it is my personal view, that children should not be in detention whenever possible. Whether they end up there or not will depend in significant part on you, your child and your attorney's preparation to offer acceptable alternatives.
An Odd Side Effect of Family Court - Sleepless Nights
I came across an article in the New York Daily News yesterday that reported that a woman who spent the day at the Bronx County Family Court, returned home with bedbugs. The complete article can be read here. It's kind of scary that on top of the difficulties confronting families embroiled in the family court system that they'd have to deal with something as insidious as bedbugs.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
The Lesson We Can Learn From K-Rod
Most of the time, the troubles of the rich seem ludicrous, self-imposed or simply beyond our comprehension. But if the plethora of tabloids and celebrity magazines assaulting our sensibilities at the checkout lines of supermarkets are any indication, as a society, we can't seem to get enough of witnessing the mighty fall, the harder the better. It entices us with a disturbing, dirty little pleasure - consuming the gory details of the problems of the well off. But rather than get fixated on the misfortunes of these people, we can take the opportunity to learn valuable lessons.
For example, not long ago, the New York Post, among others, ran a story about K-Rod, the emotionally explosive closing pitcher for the New York Mets. The story in its entirety can be read by clicking here.
In essence, as a result of an altercation with his wife's father, an order of protection (from the Criminal Court) was issued which prevented K-Rod (whose actual name is Francisco Rodriguez) from having any contact whatsoever with his wife. In direct violation of that order, K-Rod sent text messages to his wife. The content of the texts appear to have been innocuous enough (statements of love, apology, etc.) but that did not stop the police from arresting him for violating the order of protection. So now, instead of one legal battle on his hands, K-Rod has two: one for the original assault charge and a second for a charge of criminal contempt of a court order.
Family Court orders of protection are given the same weight as those from the Criminal Court. Moreover, police no longer have discretion about whether to arrest a subject of an order of protection once a violation is alleged (or they're not supposed to). The lesson here is obvious: if you are directed to comply with certain conditions as a result of an order of protection you absolutely must honor those conditions. Violations, even mild ones engaged in with the best of intentions, can land you in deeper trouble than you imagined.
For example, not long ago, the New York Post, among others, ran a story about K-Rod, the emotionally explosive closing pitcher for the New York Mets. The story in its entirety can be read by clicking here.
In essence, as a result of an altercation with his wife's father, an order of protection (from the Criminal Court) was issued which prevented K-Rod (whose actual name is Francisco Rodriguez) from having any contact whatsoever with his wife. In direct violation of that order, K-Rod sent text messages to his wife. The content of the texts appear to have been innocuous enough (statements of love, apology, etc.) but that did not stop the police from arresting him for violating the order of protection. So now, instead of one legal battle on his hands, K-Rod has two: one for the original assault charge and a second for a charge of criminal contempt of a court order.
Family Court orders of protection are given the same weight as those from the Criminal Court. Moreover, police no longer have discretion about whether to arrest a subject of an order of protection once a violation is alleged (or they're not supposed to). The lesson here is obvious: if you are directed to comply with certain conditions as a result of an order of protection you absolutely must honor those conditions. Violations, even mild ones engaged in with the best of intentions, can land you in deeper trouble than you imagined.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Child Support
Upon any separation between two parents, often the first question a parent left with the child will ask is how they are going to pay the bills on their own. Similarly, a parent who has left the home will often wonder how much they will have to pay for the support of their child(ren). Many of these questions can be answered by reviewing the controlling law in the State of New York which is the Child Support Standards Act (C.S.S.A.). (The Act in its entirety can be viewed at https://newyorkchildsupport.com/pdfs/cssa_2010.pdf).
The C.S.S.A. is merely a starting point since the act only concerns itself with basic child support amounts. There are other considerations and collateral expenses (i.e., health insurance, education, child care, life insurance, unreimbursed medical expenses, etc.) which are not contemplated by the act and which can be added to an order of support. The burden of proving these expense rests with the parent seeking support. The percentage that each parent will be responsible for these added expenses will depend on their relative incomes. For example, if one parent earns $100,000 and the other $50,000, the combined income is $150,000. The parent earning $100,000 makes up 2/3 of the total income and will generally be required to pay 2/3 of the total amount of those other expenses.
Each case is different, however, and support magistrates (the people who hear these cases in Family Court) have some discretion to deviate from these formulas (and the C.S.S.A. guidelines as well) provided there is good cause to do so, such as the existence of prior orders of support.
Generally, in the case of a W2 employee, the amount of support is a relatively straight forward calculation depending on the number of children. These cases get considerably more complicated (and difficult to prove) where the parent who is responsible for paying support actively hides assets and/or income, is working "off the books" or denies employment. In these cases, the litigation is vastly more arduous and it is often worthwhile to retain the services of an attorney, and a private investigator. The latter is an invaluable asset (though sometimes cost prohibitive) which can help unearth the true nature of a parent's income and/or assets. Whether a private investigator is needed is something you will need to discuss with your attorney.
As is the case with any litigation, preparation before going to court is vital. There is no reason a parent seeking support for a child should be short changed. It is, after all, the child's right to support that you are seeking to enforce.
The C.S.S.A. is merely a starting point since the act only concerns itself with basic child support amounts. There are other considerations and collateral expenses (i.e., health insurance, education, child care, life insurance, unreimbursed medical expenses, etc.) which are not contemplated by the act and which can be added to an order of support. The burden of proving these expense rests with the parent seeking support. The percentage that each parent will be responsible for these added expenses will depend on their relative incomes. For example, if one parent earns $100,000 and the other $50,000, the combined income is $150,000. The parent earning $100,000 makes up 2/3 of the total income and will generally be required to pay 2/3 of the total amount of those other expenses.
Each case is different, however, and support magistrates (the people who hear these cases in Family Court) have some discretion to deviate from these formulas (and the C.S.S.A. guidelines as well) provided there is good cause to do so, such as the existence of prior orders of support.
Generally, in the case of a W2 employee, the amount of support is a relatively straight forward calculation depending on the number of children. These cases get considerably more complicated (and difficult to prove) where the parent who is responsible for paying support actively hides assets and/or income, is working "off the books" or denies employment. In these cases, the litigation is vastly more arduous and it is often worthwhile to retain the services of an attorney, and a private investigator. The latter is an invaluable asset (though sometimes cost prohibitive) which can help unearth the true nature of a parent's income and/or assets. Whether a private investigator is needed is something you will need to discuss with your attorney.
As is the case with any litigation, preparation before going to court is vital. There is no reason a parent seeking support for a child should be short changed. It is, after all, the child's right to support that you are seeking to enforce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)